Well Apple does have a track record of disregarding trademarks and dealing with the monetary consequences later. A bit of a bully. They didn't really show much respect for Apple records. Who thinks of them now when you hear "Apple"? Sitting on top the biggest pile of cash does give one a sense of power.

Given that the timeline and disputes adjudicated and the results of said adjudication are all freely accessible, there is no evidence of bullying, and in fact the final resolution was for Apple Corps to transfer all rights to Apple, Inc., and license the use of those back from Apple, Inc, for an undisclosed amount of money. In doing so (following the settlement of the EMI suit) both Apple Corps and the Beatles' existing and legacy estates gained substantial monetary gain by the digital reissuance of the Beatles' catalog on iTunes, resulting in more than 1.4 million songs and over 119,000 albums sold in the U.S. iTunes store in the first week alone.

I would LOVE if Apple came and bullied me like that! Maybe I need to start up a Company as a tax shelter that would be of interest to Apple, and negotiate some of that bullying!

If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one

How can some little pipsqueak local company prevent the worldwide use of a known brand name by a multinational company like Apple?

How can that be fair?

This is ridiculous. Apple hasn't even announced a product, much less a name, and people are already up in arms over the fact that someone else uses the name that Apple might or might not use if the ever do release a rumored product?

I'd suggest joining the real world rather than letting your fantasy world get the best of you.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Just put the appropriately sized "Apple" logo front and center and be done with it like the other TV manufacturers have done. When browsing the TV aisle at my local store I see 'Sharp', 'RCA', 'Samsung', 'LG', 'VIZIO' etc. so why not 'Apple' or the Apple logo and let the branding speak for itself.

iTV sound "meh" anyway... and no love lost if it were not called iTV. I don't see other TV's naming their product other than who its from and nothing is wrong with Apple doing the same.

I think this name issue comes from casual corporate management attitude: "I name it because i like this name".

I have seen this too many times. That fact is: no you do not name it the way you like it, but you name it: a) so it makes sense to everybody and it is easy to sell; b) the name is free from legal obligations.

How can some little pipsqueak local company prevent the worldwide use of a known brand name by a multinational company like Apple?

How can that be fair?

BTW itv own the itv.com domain. Not saying the TV station cant change is name but it had it first so Apple will need to pay to get it. They just said they dont want to change it may be a message to Apple to get ready to pay a truck load of cash if they want it.

It sounded dubious that a real company would be responding to just rumor blogs by going directly to Apple. IF they approached Apple, I'd think it'd be a response to an Apple Inquiry. Apple reached agreement with Cisco on iOS vs the IOS trademark that applied only to software on networking gear.

I think this name issue comes from casual corporate management attitude: "I name it because i like this name".

I have seen this too many times. That fact is: no you do not name it the way you like it, but you name it: a) so it makes sense to everybody and it is easy to sell; b) the name is free from legal obligations.

There are things that corporate management does not seem to get.

Is that the same "casual corporate management" that generated $100B cash and one of the world's most valuable companies?

In the first week of an Apple iTV, more people in the world would know the name than all those "decades" have produced. If ITV were smart, they would license the name to Apple and reap the huge rewards of search engines sending people to their web site. As for sales, who is going to confuse a consumer product with a television network?

Like the fools that mistook a record label for a computer company.

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

Apple is not stupid enough to try to use the name even before the 2010 "don't you bloody dare" messages. Nothing has changed since then. Which is why Apple hasn't bothered trying to talk to iTV. There's nothing to talk about since they aren't going to use that name just like they didn't before. And probably were never thinking about it.

How can some little pipsqueak local company prevent the worldwide use of a known brand name by a multinational company like Apple?

How can that be fair?

As far as I know the UK station is the only known use of the ITV brand name (other than bloggers). Who else is it you are suggesting is a "known" user of that brand name other than them? (If you answer Apple, can you please point us to evidence of it's use by Apple?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy

One would think that the Telegraph would have learned by now that building vaporous rumorware doesn't work well, and that rehashing an old issue in order to drive new interest is a crap-shoot at best, and makes you look extremely silly.

What the Telegraph has learned is that if they put useless crap about some made-up Apple-related controversy on their web site, then a lot of Apple and tech blogs will link to their story and their ad revenue will go up from all the people clicking on those links.

How can some little pipsqueak local company prevent the worldwide use of a known brand name by a multinational company like Apple?

How can that be fair?

I do hope that that is meant to be sarcastic. Because iTV is not a little local company and IP laws shouldn't give automatic preference to the big boys. in fact I would say that the existence of "big boys" is exactly why such laws are needed. It keeps them from bullying their way around doing what they want because they want it.

Do you event read the articles or just the headlines?? (besides being gloriously off-topic??)

In the Reuters article:

Quote:

Reuters could not independently confirm the reports and Chinese officials and Apple in China were not immediately available for comment

Josh' blog is a bit better, but that's beside the point - right? All the speculation is just that in terms of impact. Whether this is an actual impact or Proview trying to get some advantage in negotiating it's position on the iPad moniker.

And "Business Insider" home of the incredible Henry Blodget, and sponsor of the China Hearsay blog by Stan Abrams. The fact that Stan can't seem to wrap his head around why a handful of iPads were pulled from some resellers in a smaller city, when the BAIC could have stepped in and hit the Apple Retail Store in Beijing speaks volumes to the academic nature of his background, not to mention essentially "Laowai/Gweilo" in terms of the culture. He apparently is not a business insider in Beijing, or else he would have been able to predict the nature of the response and why Proview went with smaller hits. And why BAIC is reluctant to step into this mess.

I am not disputing the facts on the ground in this case only the speculation that this is somehow "big news". It ain't. The Beijing Store being hit by the BAIC would be big news, not this. How about getting back on topic now??

If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one

They'll just buy the name like they did with Cisco. Many people don't know this, but the iPhone name actually belonged to Linksys. Cisco purchased Linksys and Apple paid an undisclosed amount of money to Cisco to buy the name. They even announced the iPhone name before the deal was closed. Having more money than any company in the world allows you to do that!

You might want to do some more research because you left out a huge hunk of info. Like the fact that Cisco had abandoned the mark the for several months and was literally days away from losing it completely when they tried to reclaim it because Apple wanted it. And the courts saw their action for what it was and said they would have to share with Apple.

That kind of mark abandonment hasn't happened with iTV. It is owned and being used actively and has been for years. So the two are in fact not at all similar.

I don't see Apple offering them that much, but I do hope they offer them something because iTV is clearly the only just name to give such a product.

I expect ITV would do a deal, but the amount would be starting at $2b for the name (that's assuming ITV is worth under $5b as an entity) because it is a 56 year old brand that broadcasts to over 60 million people - and possibly more in the future if they have internet distribution plans beyond national itv player software on various systems. There is always a price, it's just whether anyone would pay that price.

Why? The Airport and the Apple TV are in no way similar devices and don't even perform similar functions.

I didn't say they did, I was simply suggesting Apple already have a great name for their new TV but it is in use by themselves and this could be solved by renaming the Apple TV. Sorry I thought what I said was self explanatory.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

I expect ITV would do a deal, but the amount would be starting at $2b for the name (that's assuming ITV is worth under $5b as an entity) because it is a 56 year old brand that broadcasts to over 60 million people - and possibly more in the future if they have internet distribution plans beyond national itv player software on various systems. There is always a price, it's just whether anyone would pay that price.

Yeah, they have a market cap of slightly under £5B, but a more important figure is their cash, which is likely around £150M. If Apple offered them 50+M they'd be stupid not to accept it. After all this a physical product, not a channel. Apple should just name it iTV and then challenge them in court. They don't make hardware after all.

[QUOTE=AppleInsider;2044330]As rumors of an Apple television set continue to swirl, Britain's ITV network has reportedly warned Apple that its name is off-limits [updated].

Apple anticipated television has been called the "iTV" by some pundits, following the same branding as Apple's other popular products like the iPhone and iPad. The rumors and speculation have apparently been enough,

Sorry, iTV but unless and until Apple calls their produce/service iTV you don't have reason to complain. So far it's rumor and speculation, and you can't file suit and/or claim damages based on that alone. Anticipatory litigation for what you 'think' will happen isn't possible.